I get what you're saying, but basically technical terminology exists as a form of shorthand. It's a pragmatic solution. Pi = ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, or ~ 3.14....... etc.
That's one aspect of it, yeah.
But your ability to use "Pi" correctly hinges on an understanding that ultimately gets broken down into simplified language. You must know the simple break down of "circle," "ratio," "circumference" and "diameter." And changes are, your knowledge of a "circle" is just a visual impression, rather than the verbal definition. "Pi" is the word that merely recalls that bundle of plain language.
That's exactly one of the things I said in the OP. Technical terminology is contingent upon more atomic words, and the most fundamental words are extensional in that which their definition is an object. The fact that technical terminology is built upon is only speaks more to the fact that what I'm saying is true, especially from a programming standpoint. A formal language which a script is written in has to have a set of letters under which it operates, but no elegant program will run efficiently if it encumbers itself with discrete, one-by-one computations.
So, obviously, there are benefits to using technical terms in scholarly journals or wherever they are warranted. But I wouldn't say that the ability to use them denotes any specific degree of intellect, necessarily.
Forgive the directness of this, but you're probably the 10th person to completely ignore the most compelling part of my argument. There are more benefits to knowing and using such terms than just scholarly writing.
The ability to understand and grasp information is begotten by a strong understanding of words and how different varieties of words imply very different properties of what may ostensibly be the same thing. In the field of mathematics in particular, to successfully understand pure mathematical concepts, you have to have an extensive word-base, and a fine understanding of each word, as each word denotes a catastrophically similar property of two mathematical objects. Again: understanding is the ability to atomically reconstruct a concept. And before you're tempted to say that's not true, go ask an advanced calculus student if they can provide a simple proof for the consistency of infinitesimals. I guarantee many won't be able to, because they have an axiomatic understanding of calculus that was attained by trial and error rather than rigorous examination and distinctions.
It all returns to understanding.
Based on academic papers I've read, they are easier to understand when plain language is used throughout except in situations where a concept takes too many words to explain or is commonly known in the field (ie. "evolution" in a biology paper), in which a complex term is better suited. But those situations occur sporadically and tend not to apply to the article consistently as a whole.
Two things.
1. An "easy-to-read" presentation will give the reader an "idea" of how evolution works, but it won't help them to understand it. Basic words give provide pictures; technical terms provide forms and structures. A picture is worth 1,000 words--formal cohesion is worth 10,000.
2. This is probably the least of my points to contradict.
Can you non-succinctly define those concepts?
I have definitions I personally like, but that's not at all my point. My point is that words like those lack the definitive rigor that is needed to be a useful word outside of social contexts. They're ambiguous. Did you notice earlier I didn't reciprocate your usage of "intellect"? That's why. Intellect is an undefined term because it paints a picture that not everyone will interpret uniformly.
Lol. Watch yourself there. Analogies lead to chaos.
That applies for encumbering an explanation with analogies, not demonstrating an error in someone's reasoning. You took what I said completely out of context.
You have a good point, but I think that if I'm reading a biological research paper, I won't have time to look up words that only a philosophy major would know, and I'm sure the same works in reverse. Similarly, if I'm doing my taxes, I really don't have time to be pulling up the thesaurus. I'm going to need a simple, point by point bulletin with bright arrows telling me where to plug in the numbers, or else the IRS will show up at my door to punch me in the ****.
Everyone keeps citing research papers, which couldn't be farther from my point. Efficiently expressing one's self and personal pursuits are my argument; not to write essays give people an "idea" of what the subject is about. Whenever I read science journals/magazines (and several people agree with me), I put them down after reading, feeling like I learned nothing. So much vital information is sacrificed for the sake of accessibility and simplicity that for any person seriously interested in said topic, it'll be a waste of time to read. I stand by my original point: people who refuse to pursue lexical diversity of any kind will have unnecessary trouble expressing their thoughts and a harder time understanding foreign concepts because making distinctions without the adequate means to do so is a futile exercise.
If someone doesn't care about these things, then this isn't directed at them. This is directed at anybody who is serious about learning and understanding things beyond a trial-and-error intuition.
If you want to get ripped, you have to start with the smaller weights before moving on to the larger ones. If you strain a muscle the first time, you might never want to lift again.
Though not exclusive to philosophy, let me leave you with a quote from a friend of mine to another friend of mine:
"I would have never considered myself capable of pursuing logic, mathematics, science or philosophy (I grew up in a time when women weren’t really encouraged to take up these subjects), but I had such a desire to understand what you were saying that discipline and will followed. When I asked you for recommendations to begin a study of philosophy, you could have recommended something accessible like Philosophy for Dummies, and I would have read it and then put it in the pile of all the other banal translations of subjects I’ve studied over the years."
Just something to think about.
(i.e. undermining the vast importance of language and rigor)
